Concealed Weapon Permits - I support the right for citizens of Sacramento County to protect themselves and their families. I shall issue permits if applicants are of good moral character; have good cause (self-protection); have no history of negative law enforcement contact or other bad behavior, attend 16-hour training course to include firearm safety and the law regarding permissible use of a firearm, and are not otherwise prohibited by law.

And that right there is how McGuinness ended up not issuing permits to anyone and getting sued. He made the good cause level so difficult to meet, no one could get a permit. Scott Jones brought the level down to "self-defense" as good enough for good cause.

McGuiness always talked (and still does on the radio) that he is a man of the people. He isn't and wasn't. Reading the statement you posted, I wouldn't trust this next cat either. Jones was a 2A anomaly among the brass at that department.

__________________
Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.

We'll have to wait and see how it goes down and who his competitors are. He did state, "I shall issue permits". It just might be semantics between "protection" v. "defense". We'll have to see what the deputies say about him.

Kris Palmer is on the "committee" that has been revoking CCW permits. Hundreds have been revoked so far.

The reasons for the revocations don't include any of those listed in the penal code (change in residence, conviction for a crime which places the person in a prohibited class). In all cases, none of the CCW licensees were allowed to know the reason why the revocation occurred, and were only told "no longer qualified".

No due process.

You either support the Second Amendment, or you don't. Arbitrary revocation of CCW permits is not "support".

Paid for by the Save the Seahorses Committee and Defeat Kris Palmer for Sheriff, authorized by the Advocacy & Consulting California Lobbying Firm

There are factors other than what you note - there are items listed on the IA paperwork like contact with LE - if you don't report it, you can be in violation. Your statement has the appearance of a VERY wide paint brush.

Yes, I know people who have had revocations - after discussion, each has found a reason that they were revoked. Some have since gotten their revocations overturned.

Sniping. An unrelated and a poor distraction to the fact that there is no due process in the CCW review / revocation / appeals, and Palmer has been a part of that lack of due process.

In many instances the CCW licensee was never told the reason for the revocation. Revocations include a "negative" interaction with law enforcement (i.e. you didn't answer questions you were lawfully entitled not to answer, but the officer didn't like your "negative" or "bad" attitude).

By example, how can you "appeal" something, if you're not told "why" the CCW was revoked? You cannot, as it denies you a credible opportunity to respond to the facts being considered.

Palmer clearly says on his campaign site that you have to "have no history of negative law enforcement contact or other bad behavior."

Paid for by the Save the Seahorses Committee and Defeat Kris Palmer for Sheriff, authorized by the Advocacy & Consulting California Lobbying Firm

Palmer also used his position within the department and as a public official to access current CCW holder lists (with non-redacted contact information), and willfully and intentionally transferred that information to his private and personal political campaign (acting as a member of the public not under the purview of his official capacity).

Palmer then, in October, sent numerous campaign emails to those CCW holders which solicited their financial support, among other things.

When other members of the public requested that same CCW information, they were told they would have to pay for it (at least $58,000 and upwards of $220,000), but that the personal contact information would be redacted.

It is undeniable that Palmer was gifted this information by the Department, which seeks to use public resources to influence the outcome of the election and for the personal gain of Palmer.

State law and County policy prohibits public officials from using public resources for private and personal gain. A form versus function analysis undeniably shows his manifest access to the records were in his capacity as a public official, but his latent purpose was for private and personal gain.

The California Public Records Act and case law similarly requires information which is disclosed to any other member of the public, to be be disclosed to other members of the public (without cost). The Department is, again, out of compliance with the CPRA and has broken the law.

Paid for by the Save the Seahorses Committee and Defeat Kris Palmer for Sheriff, authorized by the Advocacy & Consulting California Lobbying Firm

and this... which will be a great mailer.mark nichols kris palmer mailer5.jpg
Beware questioning any of his policies or practices... you'll soon find yourself the focus of a retaliatory investigation and threats by campaign representatives.

Paid for by the Save the Seahorses Committee and Defeat Kris Palmer for Sheriff, authorized by the Advocacy & Consulting California Lobbying Firm

Paul Nordberg I have a Calguns policy question...
Is it okay to out the identity of members on this forum?

Please clarify. Because outing someone would seem to run contrary to protecting the value of free speech on issues which benefit the group but may warrant less focus upon a members' identity. I just want to remain compliant and would appreciate your feedback.

Oh, and using administrator privileges to go into someone's else's account and modify their signatures to reflect your personal beliefs. Is that okay?

Paid for by the Save the Seahorses Committee and Defeat Kris Palmer for Sheriff, authorized by the Advocacy & Consulting California Lobbying Firm

Paul Nordberg I have a Calguns policy question...
Is it okay to out the identity of members on this forum?

Please clarify. Because outing someone would seem to run contrary to protecting the value of free speech on issues which benefit the group but may warrant less focus upon a members' identity. I just want to remain compliant and would appreciate your feedback.

Oh, and using administrator privileges to go into someone's else's account and modify their signatures to reflect your personal beliefs. Is that okay?

OK with me...

Using a privately owned forum and "free speech" in the same sentence is kinda, well, special. Lecturing on free speech and shilling for a candidate under the good Samaritan guise is, well, even more special.

Mods, feel free to lock this thread down if you feel that it is warranted. I appreciate the recon and identification of a disingenuous account posting a biased rhetoric on behalf of a lobbying firm. Providing information is one thing, but the method and tact utilized destroyed any credibility of the poster.

For the record, SSD is not my department, but as a Sac Co resident I have interest in how my county will operate.